A New York court awarded nearly $200,000 to a medical marijuana patient who was fired from his job.¹ This case highlights the growing conflict between traditional workplace drug policies and the rights of individuals who use cannabis for legitimate medical reasons.
Here’s a breakdown of the case, the court's decision, and what it means for employees and employers in New York.
The Case: A Patient's Right vs. a City's Policy
The Employee: The Plaintiff, Thomas Apholz worked as a wastewater treatment plant employee for the Defendant, City of Amsterdam, New York. To manage chronic lower back pain, he became a registered medical cannabis patient and would use cannabis in capsule form during his off-hours.
The Incident: In 2020, Apholz tested positive for cannabis during a random workplace drug screening. This wasn't his first positive test. A previous test in 2017 resulted in his acceptance of a "last chance agreement," which stated that another failed test could lead to termination.
The Termination: After the 2020 positive test, the City of Amsterdam fired Apholz. The City argued that the Plaintiff held a safety-sensitive position and had not properly notified the City’s employee relations department about his medical cannabis prescription. Mr. Apholz claimed that the City was aware of his status as a medicinal cannabis user and that his off-duty use never impaired his job performance. The Plaintiff argued that the City terminated him without any discussion or attempt to provide a reasonable accommodation for his medical needs.
The Verdict: Discrimination Confirmed
After a five-day jury trial in Montgomery County, the New York Supreme Court sided with Thomas Apholz.
The jury found that the City of Amsterdam had discriminated against Mr. Apholz because of his status as a medical cannabis patient, and thereby violated New York Human Rights Law.² This Human Rights law was amended to protect certified medical cannabis users from employment discrimination. The Court determined that the City failed to discharge its legal duty to provide a reasonable accommodation for Mr. Apholz's medical condition.
As a result, the Plaintiff was awarded $191,762 in damages. He also has the right to ask the judge for reinstatement to his job and to have the City cover his legal expenses.
The Impact: A Wake-Up Call for Employers
This case sends a clear and powerful message to employers across New York State:
-
Zero-Tolerance Policies Are Risky: Outdated, zero-tolerance drug policies that don't account for legal, off-duty medical cannabis use are now legally vulnerable.
-
Accommodation is Key: Employers have a legal duty to engage in an "interactive process" to try and find a reasonable accommodation for employees who are registered medical cannabis patients. Firing an employee without this discussion can be considered discriminatory.
-
Focus on Impairment, Not Presence: The focus of workplace policy should shift from simply detecting the presence of cannabis to assessing on-the-job impairment.
For employees, this verdict strengthens their protections and confirms that using a legal, prescribed medical treatment should not cost them their job. As cannabis laws and jurisprudence continues to evolve, this case serves as a crucial precedent that impacts employee rights in the workplace.
¹ Apholz v. City of Amsterdam, Index No. E2021-0094 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Montgomery Cty.) https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2023/2023-ny-slip-op-23126.html
² Executive Law § 296 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person on the basis of his disability in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment (see NY Exec Law § 296 [a]). Additionally, a reasonable accommodation must be provided to an employee with a disability which would enable the employee to perform in a reasonable manner the activities involved in the job or occupation sought or held, provided such actions do not impose undue hardship on the entity from which it is requested (see NY Exec Law § 296 [3] [a]; 9 New York Administrative Code § 466.11). Under the Compassionate Care Act, being a certified patient (patient receiving care pursuant to New York Public Health Law § 3361), shall be deemed to be having a disability for purposes of human rights law (NY Pub Health § 3369 [2]).